Salon Anti-Guns-on-Campus Rant: Arming Women is Victim-Blaming

“Let’s be clear,” Andrea Flynn urges at salon.com. “People aren’t raped because they aren’t carrying firearms. They are raped because someone rapes them. What a sinister new twist on victim blaming. As if anything positive could come from adding loaded weapons to the already toxic mix of drugs, alcohol, masculine group think, and the rape culture endemic in college sports and Greek life on campuses around the country.” Commentator afeastforyourmind caught the contradiction inherent in Flynn’s argument and let her have it with both barrels (so to speak) . . .

The classic liberal “guns are impossible but also easy to use” bit… Cogitate this classic liberal brain-twister for a spell . . .

In the minds of our liberal friends, when a psychotic and unstable murderer picks up a gun, he immediately becomes an unstoppable juggernaut of destruction capable of massive amounts of damage because guns are so easy to use.

But wait, because our liberal friends also have another “Jewel” of wisdom to bestow upon us ignorant gun-owning yokels. They posit that when an educated and sane citizen, a person who likely drives a vehicle, uses computers, power tools, kitchen appliances and social media and manages their money well enough to avoid abject poverty picks up a gun, they become a bumbling klutz who could NEVER make a difference because guns are too complicated for a citizen to use.

Our liberal friends view murderers and rapists as towering monuments to senseless violence, immune to resistance and full of unstoppable fury, such that resistance will “only make them more angry”, while branding honest and innocent Americans as weak, impotent and helpless.

I HATE this mindset. It is poisonous and disingenuous, and breeds a “victim-culture” which does more to encourage criminality than a row of a thousand Honda Civics left unwatched, running and unlocked.

Criminals are not gods. They are cowards, fleeing from a responsible yet sometimes difficult lifestyle in favor of the quick payoff provided by forcefully taking what one desires from one who already has it.

So thanks, Salon.

You’ve perpetuated the idea that the innocent must also be helpless, else they cease to be innocent.

Really?!

Liberalism is institutionalized helplessness, and it is revolting.

Save your liberal excuses and liberal equivocations for criminals and their behavior. They disgust me.

I don’t care how nice someone is to look at if that’s the only thing they have going for them. I don’t want to have to put up with their stupidity just to have a decent view. Just because someone is attractive doesn’t mean they are worth wasting time on.

It’s the same tired argument that is almost always used on the topic of rape. “We can’t empower women because they’re powerless so we have to remove power from men”. “Women can’t be held responsible for themselves so men have to be responsible for all men and guard over women.” How about we stop criminalizing and demonizing all men and take steps to empower women against actual criminals? Sounds familiar, right? It’s from the same playbook used to make all gun owners into criminals.

Society isn’t going to change because women feel unsafe. Everyone in the world isn’t going to change, criminals aren’t going to disappear, rapes are not going to end just because “they should”. Women can, and should, take steps to protect themselves. For most situations that means taking responsibility for themselves and being in a position where they can make the choice they want (such as being conscious). For other situations an understanding of self-defense basics like martial arts of some kind are necessary (such as overt pressure from a larger person). For a small segment of situations a firearm may be necessary to ward off a determined criminal. All three levels require the individual be willing to do something to be safe. Simply having people around isn’t enough, nor is simply having a gun. The common narrative is that a gun will not make women safer and that is true if you simply give a woman a gun and she has no training or willingness to use it, which is the common assumption pushed by people like Flynn. Until people become willing to take responsibility for themselves they will continue to argue everyone else should take care of them, from those around them to the state.

This isn’t just about criminals, defense, or rape. This is always about the fight between personal responsibility and a socialist nanny state. Flynn here is arguing for the perfect socialist utopia where the state protects all and crime just doesn’t exist. We know that is not possible, but fighting for that is easier for them than taking personal responsibility for anything.

What your forgetting is that being responsible for yourself IS the liberal definition of “rape culture”. It is not them who has to change or do anything about it to take care of themselves, society has to change because they are a sensitive special snowflake who is fine just the way they are. It is society that is evil, rotten, mean and wrong and needs to change to accommodate them. Entitlement and laziness is what it is.

“…toxic mix of drugs, alcohol, masculine group think, and the rape culture endemic in college sports and Greek life on campuses around the country.”
So…maybe we should ban all women from attending college so that they will not be exposed to this toxic mix of drugs alcohol and naked testosterone that breeds rapists? I am sure you will find plenty of adherents to this solution…in Afghanistan. Or maybe we should not have co-ed colleges, only same sex schools? After all, women should not be even thinking about having “fun” until they are married, right? We will call this the “Protect American Womens’ Virginity” platform. Or better yet, just eliminate all of the men….Apparently each of these solutions is better than arming women against evil male aggression….

Women should be able to choose to do whatever they want without any ramifications. That’s women’s lib 101. It’s their body, they can get blind drunk and have sex with everyone they want, it’s their choice. The consequences are not their fault, it’s the fault of someone else, from the person that poured the drink or consented. It’s up to everyone else to have better judgement and take care of women because equality.
/sarc rant over

In the real world we call that a “victim factory”. They need victims to push their industry. College creates appropriate inputs for industry, whether that be “qualified” applicants or victims. Flynn here is just utilizing one of the functions of college.

Russ, it’s easy to understand what that phrase means if you remember that according to feminists, men are no different from dogs. Just as dogs will tend to be more aggressive when they are together in a pack, us men, who by their definition are basically dogs, will immediately start raping and molesting women whenever a group of us are together. It’s just our nature since we are evil beastly men.

This entire argument is hard to follow and I have several degrees and above average IQ. Is it just me or is this entire article a truckload of B.S. ? Even the main point that women are raped not because they don’t have guns (to protect themselves) but just because they are raped ? What the heck kind of logic is that ? It makes NO sense at all to me. One thing has nothing to do with the other, does it ? If this is what passes for a logical statement on that college campus they need to close the doors or hire some new professors. Probably the first choice.

It is the usual hysteria that we have come to expect from Progressives. In this case Ms. Flynn is using the “false premise” fallacy — the false premise being that a rapist is going to rape his intended victim no matter what the intended victim does … so why take any chances with a gun when the rapist could, maybe, sort of, once in a blue moon, disarm the victim and use the gun to kill her after the rape?

We need to call out such hysteria. Invite Ms. Flynn to a challenge: you will be armed with an airsoft pistol and her objective is to disarm you without you shooting her. Every time she disarms you, you pay her $100. And every time you succeed in shooting her, she pays you $100. Let’s see who comes out ahead after 20 attempts.

You can more easily sum up her thesis as “do what I say because I know better”. Want some evidence? She knows better than evidence. Need some kind of logic? She knows better. Perhaps because she’s just smarter than everyone else.

Women get raped because they get raped. Men are dogs (or pigs/beasts/brutes/barbarians) because they are dogs. Guns are evil because they are evil. According to them these are just facts and you can’t argue with facts. When it comes to the other side of the fence, however, there are no facts. We have to prove everything so they can try to poke holes in or manipulate stats according to their interpretation.

I will agree with her general premise with my interpretation. Women aren’t raped because they’re not carrying a gun, women are raped because they do nothing to defend themselves. Empower women to defend themselves, with or without a gun. Teach them to get the training, stay aware and in control, and carry the tools to stay safe.

This is just one of many golden opportunities … thus I encourage everyone to make it a point to refer to gun grabbers as women haters or pro-rape supporters.

Think about it. Is there a better way to open a conversation with a gun grabber? “So, how long have you been pro-rape?” or “So, how long have you hated women?”

I say that in all seriousness by the way. Make them explain how taking away the most effective self-defense tool from women is good for women and makes rape more difficult. Make them explain how making women more vulnerable to rape is anything but hating women.

They won’t explain themselves, they will pretend to take the high road and call you out on not debating earnestly and turn around and use the tactic they accused you of once you start debating in earnest.

They have an actual strategy and are indoctrinated into it, not through formal training, but by being sucked into a group think that believes they are intellectually superior and then saturated in talking points. They see themselves as teachers, and if you try to argue with them then they usually will not participate honestly but will instead try to veer back to their lesson plan. Even if they do not think they are personally intellectually superior, they thing the train they’ve hitched their wagon to is. Those folks are worse because they are reciting others who they believe are smarter than you and they don’t even have to pretend to debate you, it’s been debated already by “experts” and they have adopted the “expert” opinion and that trumps any silly ‘logic’ or ‘reason’ that you bring to the table.

That tactic would be useful, however, for an exchange observed by a fence-sitter. Emotionally shock with your opening statement and followup with facts and statistics that are presented to have an emotional impact as well.

I agree with your assessment of how gun grabbers operate as well as our need for an effective response.

Gun grabbers like to accuse us of being stupid, crazy, or corrupt in an attempt to discredit everything that we say. In their minds, if we are any of those three conditions, then we deserve no voice or consideration for anything else that we request. Therefore, I like the idea of asking, “So, when did stupid, crazy, or corrupt people lose ALL of their rights?”

I also like the idea of stating a simple fact to gun grabbers. My rights are my rights, period. No matter how many people in my location are determined to rape me, I still have a right to NOT be raped. No matter how stupid, crazy, or corrupt I may be, I still have a right to NOT be raped. No matter how intense people may feel about me or their own urges, I still have a right to NOT be raped. Period! And once they agree, then you tell them, “And just as I have a right to NOT be raped, I have a right to NOT be disarmed.”

This makes something very clear to them as well as fence sitters: gun grabbers are dangerous, irrational, hysterical people who actively seek to harm others … unlike people who dare to be armed for self-defense who actively seek to leave others alone.

You do not have a right to not be raped.
That is stupid, crazy, delusional, whatever you want to call it. You do have a right to defend yourself from that and other such attacks.
Big difference. Trumped up pseudo-rights are things gun grabbers like to employ.

You are sorely mistaken … I do, indeed, have a right to go about my business unmolested. A person who stops me to rape me has violated my right to go about my business unmolested. Thus I have a right to NOT be raped.

While the wording may be awkward, I chose that wording to make sure everyone will understand the serious nature of our rights and the serious nature of the offense.

Saying it another way, I spoke in a double negative. I have a right to go about my life unimpeded. Thus I have a right to not be impeded. Yes, I know this makes English majors cringe. It seemed like an impactful and expedient way to explain things.

So…rape’s better than defending yourself because….Jesus f#cking Christ! I can’t even pretend to know what they mean by this horse sh!t! This kind of liberal dumb-f#ckery sickens me to the very core! I pray this is some form of Natural Selection grade Stupidity! I weep at the idea of what this country will be like 25 years down the road if this kind of mindset become the norm.

Would someone please enlighten me: why is the matter of carrying a firearm on college campuses tied to rape, as if that is the sole reason anyone would ever have need or desire to carry a firearm on a college campus?

By getting into the trench warfare of the efficacy of arming potential rape victims, we are once again allowing the other side to define the playing field. Those potential rape victims have a natural, constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, whether or not it would help them defend themselves against a rapist.

That’s because we debate honestly, and as such we want to answer directly the points being presented to us. Imagine two teams on a basket ball court. One is trying to win a basketball game honestly and the other is only out to stab the first team in the kidneys.

I think you bring up a good point. They come from so many sides, so many places…its like playing whack-a-mole…as a result, I suspect they often control the direction of a debate away from the core right. I don’t view myself as a good debater, or even a persuasive speaker. In the spirit of honest discussion one can get led into a straw-man argument.

“…breeds a “victim-culture” which does more to encourage criminality than a row of a thousand Honda Civics left unwatched, running and unlocked.”

Andrea Flynn and others of her ilk thrive on the “victim-culture”. Without it, who would pay any attention to her? What would she do with her degree in Women’s Studies? Creating victims is her livelihood.

There are a lot of people that care more about being politically correct than stopping rape. It boggles my mind, but I guess it shouldn’t- there’s an insistence out there in lala-liberal-land that victims be well-behaved and compliant.

If you click through the article to her bio, you will see that she is a professional feminist, with graduate degrees from (drum roll …) Columbia University. She was an undergraduate at Syracuse. Maybe being tall, thin, and pretty she was — horror of horrors — hit on — but being a professional feminist she couldn’t hand a snappy line back and now makes a career of demonizing men. She is, oddly enough, married to a man and has children. Most importantly, she lives in NYC, where she lives in fear of her shadow. If, God Help Us, Hillary is elected, she will probably be offered a position in Washington, fortunately, again based on the bio, in HHS or State where she can do the least harm.

If you click through the article to her bio, you will see that she is a professional feminist with graduate degrees from (drumroll…) Columbia University. And she lives in NYC. Undergraduate degree from Syracuse in (drumroll…) women’s studies. Clearly bankrolled through an easy life. If Hillary should (God Forbid) be elected, she will get a minor post in HHS or State working on women’s health issues where at least she will do minimal damage. Oddly enough, her bio says she is married to a man and has children. All of this suggests to me that being tall, slim, pretty, and probably wealthy, she got hit on a lot in HS and college — and did not know how to give a snappy remark, or a slap, back to the guys she was not interested in, and now she takes her own doubts out on all males. She also was probably hated by women who did not look nearly as good, and wished they were hit on half as often as she was, and part of the feminism is a misguided wish to be loved by those women who will always hate her because they cannot be her. (This point from my dear wife, who has always been slim and pretty, and has always had problems with jealousy and overt hatred from the overweight and ugly.)

Two questions:
Does anyone think frat houses or other places full of drunk kids doing dumb stuff is a good place to have guns?
Does anyone have evidence that armed women on a college campus will stop/reduce rapes?

Ah.yes. law abiding citizens that usually have to be twenty one, and without a DUI, a domestic violence charge, a felony, or any evidence of being so irresponsible that they have been charged with any crime suddenly become drunken, irresponsible animal house party animals unable to the handle the responsibility of using a gun wisely when they cross the boundaries of the university grounds. Sorry, all the crime data shows that people legally carrying a fire arm are more law abiding than the police.

Well, it’s kind of hard to prove a negative, but women carry guns all the time when not on university grounds and they believe it helps to stop a rape if it happens. Same points about women legally carrying a gun being more law abiding and responsible than the police.

Extra point, in the end, requiring any of those before carrying a gun is an infringement of an inalienable right, but we are becoming more free state by state. Constitutional Carry.

I am not saying anything about the mental change going on campus or asking if any laws will be broken. Do you think that in a frat house it is possible that during a party when people are drunk and showing off it is possible that there would be accidents?

Second point, you are right, you cannot prove a negative but you can look at the situations women get raped on campus and compare similar situations where the woman was armed.

The argument that a woman who is armed is less likely to get raped is not true in all situations; roofied, passed out drunk etc. The argument I see all the time is the grossly simplified give a girl a gun and she can defend herself. It is possible to compare reported college rapes with reported off campus rapes and push real facts in the anti`s faces. Without that the fear mongers will win every time. Pointing to real women and dead rapists can sway an argument. You can even get support from past victims when you can say X number of women wouldn’t have been raped.

True, but it should still be a choice. Take a look at Australia and Great Britain. Following their (relatively) recent sweeping gun control, the rate of completed sexual assaults skyrocketed. Also, you are correct that it is a slightly more complicated issue in college. But it’s idiotic to say that college students shouldn’t be able to carry because of what others might do. More than anything, consider the barrier to entry. A gun is gonna be $350 AT LEAST, probably more. Holster? $50 at least. Belt? Again, $50 at least. Then, the class and licensing fees will add up to a couple hundred. College kids aren’t known for having large amounts of discretionary income, so that right there will stop the dumbest ones. And the kind of idiots who would show off their gun to their frat bros, while drunk, is the kind who would rather spend hundreds on beer than on guns.

But again, this is all irrelevant. College is full of drugs and alcohol, yes. But it’s not a place where 100% of the students are completely plastered 100% of the time, not by a damn sight. Saying that college kids aren’t allowed to defend themselves because some might abuse the tools is no different from the “logic” behind any other gun control.

I am not saying anything about the mental change going on campus or asking if any laws will be broken. Do you think that in a frat house it is possible that during a party when people are drunk and showing off it is possible that there would be accidents?

Does anyone think frat houses or other places full of drunk kids doing dumb stuff is a good place to have guns?

I lived in a fraternity house. I was neither drunk nor did I do “dumb stuff”. Of course, it was an engineering school, not a party school. Regardless: I am responsible for my own actions. Living in a fraternity house would not have been a valid reason to deny my rights.

Does anyone have evidence that armed women on a college campus will stop/reduce rapes?

False premise. Why is such specific evidence required?

There is ample evidence that gun free zones attract crime, and areas with known, armed citizens repel crime (especially violent crime, such as murder and rape). Why would a college campus be any different?

So what they’re implying is…no woman should be allowed to go anywhere unescorted, probably by a male relative. No woman should be allowed own a firearm, they are incapable of handling one properly. No woman should permitted to go to any sort of party or even without a chaperone, to ensure they don’t get drunk and do something stupid or get raped.

So pretty much they want to return to the bronze age when women were property and belonged to men as property, had no rights and had to be protected at all times. We have a culture like that, it’s in the middle east. Hey! She could join Isis and never have to worry about evil male rapists again…..right?

/Sarc for those without the ability to sense sarcasm.

I’m armed, my wife is armed and we seem to have no trouble with people bothering us. So….I’ll continue with that lifestyle:p

The greatest failing in education is the lack of critical thought taught to students. This argument, and similar ones, are a perfect example.

A man is walking in the dark, in an unsafe neighborhood. He has an expensive suit, a gold rolex, and is carry openly a wad of cash. He gets robbed.

Now, does any of the above diminish one iota the malice or criminality of the robber? No. Does that prevent us from saying that one should not draw attention to himself in that way? No. You aren’t blaming the man for the robbery; at most you blame him for unnecessarily exposing himself to danger. And all you necessarily mean is that he could have taken steps to make himself a less likely target. I know almost no one that would dispute that

But when that example is changed to a young woman, in scanty clothing dressed in way that is meant to attract attention, leaves a bar alone and walks at night through an unsafe neighborhood, suddenly that reasoning doesn’t apply?

No one is saying that dressing to draw attention to yourself is always wrong (a single lady at a club that wants to meet guys wants to be attractive). They are just saying the same things also draw unwanted attention. She should not walk alone, or if she must, she should try and dress down, not to draw attention. Does failing to “cover up” excuse her rapist? No. But doing so would make her less likely to be noticed by the would be rapist.

But that is victim blaming.

It is even worse here. On a certain level, with those two examples I would argue some morality involved in modesty (not thinking sexual only… wearing fancy clothing, that draws attention to oneself at an undue time or place). An ethical, but not legal issue. But the right to self defense is not the same thing as a duty to defend oneself. Not only does failing to defend oneself not excuse the assailant, there is no moral obligation, in and of itself, to defend oneself. (of course a father who has children that depend on him, e.g., may have a moral duty to protect both them and himself, and similar things like that)

So it is even less “victim blaming”. No, it is victim empowerment (that is a word leftists currently like right?)

I’m always amazed by the new heights of stupidity that are reached whenever I hear the term “victim blaming.” It’s as if progressives think that women have no power at all to prevent themselves from being raped. Let me be clear: rape is absolutely the fault of the rapist, and we need to do a better job of teaching young men to respect women. That being said, to suggest that individual women can do nothing to protect themselves from rape culture is pure, unadulterated stupidity. To claim that an armed woman has no better chance against a rapist than an unarmed woman is ignorant, ideological demagoguery and an utter denial of reality. It’s ironic how progressives will talk out of one side of their mouth about empowering women, and then talk out of the other side about how powerless they are against rapists. An armed woman is an empowered woman. A sober woman at a frat party full of drunken strangers is an empowered woman. This isn’t blaming the victims, it’s just common sense.

So Andrea Flynn is pro-criminal and pro-rape, as all feminazis are. Without criminals victimizing defenseless women Andrea Flynn and all the other members of her antihuman coven would have to find real jobs, instead they glorify “victims” and use them to steal money from taxpayers. Same as the race-baiting poverty pimps, without the racism they create on a daily basis they, too, would have to get real jobs instead of stealing from everyone else.

I guarantee that EVERY one of those gun-haters we see on tv, hear on the radio and read about online and in papers would immediately grab a gun laying on a table without a second thought if they were anywhere by themselves and a murderous psychopath was in the process of crashing through the door or window hellbent on raping or slaughtering them or their loved ones…I’d love to ask any of them face to face “with 100% honesty, what would you do in that scenario?”

The first thing of interest to me? Despite the other side’s insistence that the “vast majority” of campus rape is perpetrated by someone known to the victim, of the 75 reports of sexual assault at UT from 2010 to 2014, 48 indicated that the perpetrator was unknown.

I believe that 48/75 works out to 64%. In other words: nearly two thirds of reported sexual assaults were perpetrated by someone unknown to the victim.